Bob Costas Gun Control Statement (Read 1054 times)

Why is this always cast as all or nothing? All weapons must be permitted or a citizen will not be allowed to own a single gun?

Owning a single gun would be tough for me.

I have 2 shotguns. I use one for upland birds (quail, dove, etc.) and one just for wild turkey.

I have a .223 AR-15 rifle that I use for hog and coyote hunting and a 7mm Rem Mag rifle that I use for elk, deer, antelope, etc.

I have a .22 LR semi-auto Ruger 10/22 that really is a just for fun gun for inexpensive plinking of cans and targets (costs pennies per shot vs. some of my hunting rifle ammunition costs over $2 per round) and I have a .22 Mag rifle that I probably need to sell because I never use it. I bought it before my .223.

I have a .22 LR/Mag handgun Ruger single six revolver that I used when I ran a trap line and is still good to have around.

Asking an avid hunter to own just a single gun would be like telling a runner they could only have one pair of shoes.

Why is this always cast as all or nothing? All weapons must be permitted or a citizen will not be allowed to own a single gun?

It looks like this because this is a message board. One of the weird things that happens on message boards is that questions and answers become very THIS OR THAT, YES OR NO, PLUS OR MINUS, SHARKS OR JETS, etc.

I have 2 shotguns. I use one for upland birds (quail, dove, etc.) and one just for wild turkey.

I have a .223 AR-15 rifle that I use for hog and coyote hunting and a 7mm Rem Mag rifle that I use for elk, deer, antelope, etc.

I have a .22 LR semi-auto Ruger 10/22 that really is a just for fun gun for inexpensive plinking of cans and targets (costs pennies per shot vs. some of my hunting rifle ammunition costs over $2 per round) and I have a .22 Mag rifle that I probably need to sell because I never use it. I bought it before my .223.

I have a .22 LR/Mag handgun Ruger single six revolver that I used when I ran a trap line and is still good to have around.

Asking an avid hunter to own just a single gun would be like telling a runner they could only have one pair of shoes.

Hey! This is Modern times! You are either 100% FOR the NRA and want zero restrictions on guns or ammo, ever... Or you you are AGAINST the NRA if you support ANY measure, no matter how small, that might restrict gun production, transportation, or purchase in any way!!

...Now choose your side.

(I'm just being silly of course, many folks are in the middle grey area called 'do the best you can' concerning the implenentation of policies and etc. But like partisain politics and everything else, the battle over gun restrictions / gun rights is 2 groups of people sitting on opposite sides of the grand canyon as far as their stance is concerned...)

It seemed to be cast that way right in this thread. The slippery slope argument is generally specious, and is commonly used by either side, in opposite directions.

It's not specious when a little bit of reading will show you that incrementally chipping away at gun rights, versus the total improbability of getting any outright ban passed, is a logical strategy being pursued in some corners.

"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

Guns were way more tightly controlled back in the J Edgar Hoover era. I'd say the slippage has been toward less control. I probably could do plenty of little bits of reading that would support either side, but I'm not that interested. I probably don't belong in this thread.

I think FBI anti-gangster enforcement was responsible for keeping machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and the like in check. They didn't necessarily care whether they really had the legal authority to do so. That's how J Edgar worked.

I think FBI anti-gangster enforcement was responsible for keeping machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and the like in check. They didn't necessarily care whether they really had the legal authority to do so. That's how J Edgar worked.

Uh, "machine guns" are still illegal (unless you have a Class III and about $15,000), as are sawed off shotguns. Urban gangs and drug deals are a lot more relevant nowadays than Al Capone is.

Overall, guns are more tightly regulated now than they were back then. If you really want I can give you concrete examples. No mail order, background checks, increased restrictions on types of weapon features and types of people prohibited from purchases, for starters.

"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

Okay. What I'm trying to point out, though, is that people get up in arms, so to speak, at the mere suggestion that it might be prudent to require a background check for a weapon purchase - that obviously means that the evil gov't is going to take all weapons away from the citizens.

When the USA tries to ban guns completely in a region (Washington DC for example) it results in three things: One: All Law abiders do not purchase guns. Two: All Law abiders who keep their guns have to violate the law to keep 'em! Three: All crooks KEEP their guns so you end up with a situation where only the non-law abiders are armed! And note also, even though handguns are illegal in DC, it has the highest death by gun rate per capita in the USA. -- Laws passed with good intentions oftentimes have the opposite effect that was intended.

4. Comparing death rate in a city (D.C.) to death rate in various states mixes apples and oranges. And your data is from 2002. In fact, D.C.'s firearms murder rate is declined significantly (19 per 100,000 in 2006-07 v. 31.2 per 100,000 in 2002) and is lower than many other cities, including Newark (25.4 per 100,000), Detroit (35.9), Oakland (26.6), Miami (23.7), St. Louis (24.1), Baltimore (29.7), Richmond VA (23.1), and good ol' New Orleans (62) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6018.pdf

Even those who read can favor sensible limits on gun ownership. I still have no idea why anyone can purchase semiautomatic firearms, high capacity ammo magazines, and bullets built for maximum human destruction. The only argument I've heard is that any restrictions will ultimately lead to total restrictions, which I don't find very convincing.

Give Costas credit for speaking his mind on a hot-button topic -- and who cares if you don't agree? Discourse is good and I can handle the 90-second diversion from the 10th football game of the day. Put Ted Nugent on next week. It's fine with me.

Okay. What I'm trying to point out, though, is that people get up in arms, so to speak, at the mere suggestion that it might be prudent to require a background check for a weapon purchase - that obviously means that the evil gov't is going to take all weapons away from the citizens.

While it is true that some may get their hackles up at anything, I don't think most people mind the background check, at least when purchasing from a store. It's a simple form and a short phone call, takes about 5 minutes. Unless you are a felon making an illegal purchase, I don't see what the big deal is (and I have to do it 1-2 times per year).

"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

I still have no idea why anyone can purchase semiautomatic firearms, high capacity ammo magazines, and bullets built for maximum human destruction. The only argument I've heard is that any restrictions will ultimately lead to total restrictions, which I don't find very convincing.

Then you simply have no understanding of how firearms are used in legitimate purposes.

And, what is "a bullet built for maximum human destruction"? How is that different than "maximum deer/antelope/elk" destruction? Short answer is that it is not, you're just putting inflammatory language in there for effect.

Not to mention, many people use their firearms for defense in their homes, where a) you do indeed want to create maximum destruction to stop a human threat, and b) the same features that do maximal damage in the body have the side benefit of reducing penetration through walls and shooting an unintended target in the next room/house.

But I remember you from before, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering. I will listen to my original inclination to exit the thread now.

"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

I still have no idea why anyone can purchase semiautomatic firearms, high capacity ammo magazines, and bullets built for maximum human destruction. The only argument I've heard is that any restrictions will ultimately lead to total restrictions, which I don't find very convincing.

My argument is that they are really good hunting firearms. When a sounder of pigs shows up it is really nice to have a semiautomatic firearm with a high capacity magazine. (I use a 20 round magazine)

Not sure what a bullet built for maximum human destructioin is though. I like to use premium hunting bullets that have a high weight retention and will penetrate bone and cartilage effectively to make sure it will get to the vitals of the pigs.

MTA: I use my bolt action 7mm Rem Mag with only a 3 round magazine for deer/elk/antelope. It shoots a heavier bullet and has a longer effective range than the little .223. Also it has a lot more knock down power for a big animal like an elk. I still use premium bullets with it though.

The main difference is that generally you are only allowed to shoot 1 deer/elk/antelope and on the pigs I keep shooting until I can't see them anymore and then go see how many I ended up killing. They can be in groups of 12 - 14 on a regular basis.